Factory Farming can either be OK or absolutely disgusting. theres no good factory farming. Animals are sexually abused by workers, and beaten. Usually with gate pole's and canes. they are smacked on the ground and pulled by their legs and ears and tails. Their tails are cut off and they get ammonia burns on their feet and chest. Most can not walk and others can barely walk. What looks like a fully grown chicken is actually screaming for help as a chick. They get heart disease because of their cardiovascular systems. they are left in their own fesies, to rot and die and are treated in the most horrid way with the workers using them as a sex buddy, and beating toy.

My opponent has already clearly expressed his opinion that factory farming can be "OK", please keep that in mind.

factory farming - the process of raising livestock in confinement at high stocking density, where a farm operates as a factory — a practice typical in industrial farming by agribusinesses [1]

"Animals are sexually abused by workers, and beaten."

You have provided no source for this statement so I cannot properly refute it but I can say with relative certainty that animals are no "sexually" abused like you have stated. Please provide documentation for this claim and I will refute it but I refuse to refute absurd claims made without proper proof to backing it up.

"What looks like a fully grown chicken is actually screaming for help as a chick."

Clarify please. What do you mean? And how does it pertain to the banning of factory farming.

Much of my opponents "points" so far have been a strange and disturbing rant about the alleged evils of factory farming with no sourcing of any kind.

The Benefits of Factory Farming

More Productive

Factory farming is vastly more efficient than cageless farming or traditional farming methods. Take for example the egg industry. Chickens are one of the animals commonly factory farmed usually for their eggs. If the egg industry were to switch back over to conventional methods the cost would increase by 40%. [2] This cost is of course monetary however it also costs the farmer in other areas such as land and production. If the egg industry were to switch over it would cost farmersan additional 580,000 acres of cropland to be allotted to egg production. That is 580,000 acres of land that can no longer by used to farm other products which in turn would drive the price of related goods up.

So factory farming in the long run is much more efficient for the agricultural business. It saves land and capital while providing labor.

Cheap Food

Non-factory farmed foods are usually placed in the "organic" sections of grocery or stores such as Fresh Market where "green" foods sold. People who shop at organic grocery stores pay 20% more than people who shop for conventional foods.[3] This number is in line with my previous statistic that said that food production in the dairy market would jump 40% if switched off of factory farming. The average consumer unit spends $6,372 a year on food. [4] If this cost is increased by say 30% (an average of the two numbers concerning the high prices of non factory farm goods) the average price of food annually for the average consumer unit will be $8283. This will put a hefty dent in the pockets of many Americans who rely on cheap food. The average price of a gallon of milk in August 2011 was $3.39 increased by the average 30% used before raises the price to $4.40 a gallon. These are ridiculously high prices and would lead to an economic down turn.

Economics

Factory farms are usually large operations that employ 700,000 annually. [6] These jobs are usually pulled from local farming communities and supply a consistent source of jobs in comparison to the seasonal job swing of ma and pop farms. Also since factory farming is so heavily based upon technology such as machinery [7] jobs in the farm equipment and manufacturing business have subsequently gone up. This job creation plus the money put back into the pocket of average Americans is good for economics and far outweighs the benefits of traditional farming strategies.

Crop Yield

Since the 1950's crop yields around the world have exploded mainly due to the increased spread of technology and use of factory farming techniques. Cereal production more than doubled between the years 1961–1985 [8]. More than doubled! In the face of a growing world population I can hardly say that the ethical treatment of animals outweighs the fate of humanity and global populations. This increase in food production has also driven down the food prices in the US while providing food for less developed nations.

Humanity > Livestock

The benefits that factory farming have offered to humanity is much greater than the negatives of factory farming. Increased food production, a better economy, cheap food are things that are more important than the shortcomings of factory farming. The life of a cow is not equal to that of a human ... the life of countless cows is not equal to one human life. in 2005 factory farming accounted for 40% of global meat production [1] meaning that factory farming, in the meat department alone, affects 2.8 billion people worldwide. This being said it is fair to say that the risks to livestock far far outweigh the benefits to affected humans.

Conclusion

Factory farming is good for food production and is more efficient for farmers which leads to a boost in the economy of places utilizing factory farming while providing consumers with cheap food. These benefits make factory farming worthwhile and the practice should not be banned.

To your earlier claims. There is such a thing as sexual deviance and abuse against animals in factory farming, the peta have seen this, and posted it http://www.peta.org... . They have been their on multiple occasions in different places and have seen this and witnessed the cruelness. I take in some of your arguments and agree to a point, however not speaking as a professional but speaking as a person, animals are living creatures, my quote Fully grown chickens screaming for help as chicks, this was written in an article in a well read newspaper. Investigators went to two different factory farms, one being partly ok, hay and small sticks on the floor with enough room to move, however the next was appalling, with what looked like fully grown chickens were actually baby chicks that were fattened and in pain. 23/24 hours a day lights are kept on in factory farms meaning the chickens are continuously eating, 3/4 of the chickens have ammonia burns, heart failure and deformed bones, with the others being DEAD, DEFORMED, UNABLE TO WALK OR IN THE MIST OF DYING.

With FACTORY FARMING CAN EITHER BE OK, I WAS STATING THE FACT THAT ON A RARE OCCASION 1/58 FACTORY FARMS ARE REPORTED OK. PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND.

WHY FACTORY FARMING SHOULD BE CHANGEDYes, with traditional methods of farming "The cost would increase by 40%" however this doesn't mean we have to use tradditional methods of farming, Factory Farming as it is today should be banned however it should be adapted for future use.

CLEANLINESS

Animals suffer from ammonia burns in factory farms due to laying and eating in their own faeces, They are given limited room, or in most cases no room to move. They are dragged by workers, on there burns and beaten with poles and canes. Cow Factory Farms Are also very bad for climate change. Worse than cows in an ordinary fields.

ECONOMICS

yes many people are given jobs however they are not fit to work with the animals. If you can give me any source to which workers treat the animals well then i will reconsider this part of debate however until then, you are being hypocritical and doing exactly what you stated "no sourcing of any kind".

CHEAP FOOD

Yes this is a solution tocheaper food, howvever if you think the average of £7 for a medium sized broiler chicken is cheap then im sure your mistaken. Finest Free range chickens cost an average of £7.89, and have been treated fairly and given space, organic chickens with an average of £8.20 for a medium chicken, I think you should reconsider that argument.

CHICKEN FEED

Chicken feed has contained inorganic arsenic increasing the risk of lung problems and many other problems. These chickens are fed to us and were increasing the risk of lung cancer.

CANNIBALISM

Chicken feed in factory farms can contain chicken! Disturbing as it may seem some feeders give chickens feed which can contain their own meat.

CONCLUSION

Factory Farming is abusive, only around £1 cheaper than free range chickens of the same size, has in the past caused diseases and problems for consumers, These are only around a hundredth of the reasons to change factory farming my sources are at the bottom of this page. These animals are meant to be outside roaming free, not cooped up inside in small cages being killed.

1) PETA is clearly a biased source and is known for radical and fabricated claims, if you could provide a neutral source such as a news article or report I will take this claim as true. PETA is the group that created a graphic flash game of a raccoon chasing a blood covered Mario (as in Mario Bros.) because they thought Mario Bros. supports the wearing of fur products. Please provide a neutral source. [http://features.peta.org...]

2) As for your second claim about the "mistreatment" of chickens, I would like to remind you and our readers that I have countered the claims of such mistreatment with the countless benefits of factory farming and even made a point of saying that human life is far more valuable than the life of a chicken or even a hundred chickens.

-- You make a claim "1/58" factory farms are "reported OK", please reference. Without evidence this could be completely faboricated.

-- "however this doesn't mean we have to use traditional methods of farming"If we do not use factory farming what else are you refering to? When I say "traditional methods of farming" I am refering to free range farming where animals roam across open land and in large pens. I think that this is what you are refering to. If we ban factory farming we will have to go to free range farming which is what causes the increase in cost and decrease in usable farm land.

-- Yes some places mistreat cows however I do not understand how the cows are beaten and dragged about if you yourself have said that they don't move, so where are these cows being beaten and dragged if there is no room? These are things I can ask since you have provided no specific sourcing for this fact and I do not feel like reading through all of your some nine odd bias sources to find this one line, please in text citate.

-- Cheap food: You cite a difference of a mere 40 pence, or around a dollar for my American readers, but once again provide no source for this information. But if an average family eats meat twice a day, and we assume all meat has a $1 price increase that's $2 a day for 365 days or around a $750 dollar annual increase on meat alone. Also you claim I did not source my claim on jobs when I clearly pointed out that it employs 700,000 people and provided a source. Also you are no judge of whether or not they are trained for handling animals or not.

This leads me into my next set of points.

Banning

When you say "factory farming should be banned" I am going to assume that you mean for the entire globe.

I have pointed out that the largest benefit from factory farming is indeed the cheap prices of grocery store food products. Now both of us have pointed out significant differences in price between "organic" (non factory farmed) and "average" (factory farmed) food.

Now for people such as ourselves an increase in a dollar here or a couple dollars there may not seem like much but to much of the world it would be crushing.

31.2% of the world lives below the poverty line [1]

Yes, nearly one third of the world's population lives in poverty, now if you ban factory farming globally then much of this 31% will feel the effects of the price increase.

In countries such as India where poverty is extreme and defined differently the switch away from factory farming would prove disastorous. The US has been spreading and sharing its farming technology with the world.

"According to the Worldwatch Institute, 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs are produced this way." [2]

So as you can see the majority of average meat and dairy products are produced in this fashion meaning that all the majority of meat and dairy products would see an increase in price.

"India's official poverty level, on the other hand, is split according to rural vs. urban thresholds. For urban dwellers, the poverty line is defined as living on less than 538.60 rupees (approximately USD $12) per month, whereas for rural dwellers, it is defined as living on less than 356.35 rupees per month (approximately USD $7.50)." [3]

As you can see people in India live on $7-12a month which accounts for 25% of the population [1] or roughly 300,000,000 people. These people would not be able to afford an increase in price for any goods much less things they need to survive such as food.

Globally banning factory farming would prove disastorous to the less stable places in the world that are increasingly counting on expanding cheap sources of food i.e factory farmed food. Your proposition would potentially lead to mass starvation and the inflation of the global food market.

** "These animals are meant to be outside roaming free"

You make this claim but I have to ask how do we know what animals are meant for? According to Christian beliefs humanity was given dominion over the earth and the beasts.

"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." - Genisis 1:26 [4]

So according to cultures who follow the Old Testiment of the Bible i.e Christians and Jews, we have dominion over the earth and over the livestock. As you can see your statement is subjective and the purpose of animals differs from culture to culture.

Conclusion

Things that factory farming does well:

Low monetary cost — Intensive agriculture tends to produce food that can be sold at lower cost to consumers. This is achieved by reducing land costs, management costs, and feed costs through government subsidized agricultural methods.Standardization — Factory farming methods permit increased consistency and control over product outputEfficiency — Animals in confinement can be supervised more closely than free-ranging animals, and diseased animals can be treated faster. Furthermore, efficient production of meat, milk, or eggs results in a need for fewer animals to be raised.Economic contribution — The high input costs of agricultural operations result in a large influx and distribution of capital to a rural area from distant buyers rather than simply recirculating existing capital.Food safety — Reducing number and diversity of agricultural production facilities may or may not make oversight and regulation of food quality easierAnimal health — Larger farms may or may not employ greater resources to maintain a high level of animal health. Larger farms can potentially employ expert employees who devote their working hours to assessing animal health, a task which would be cost-prohibitive for most small farms [5]

As you can see, the banning of factory farming would be murderous to the global population in poverty. It should not be banned due to this. The benefits it provides to the world are to great to simply eliminate it. Also in large industrialized complexes farming becomes more managable and easier to assess health risks and harm to animals.

Please in-cite source this round so we can actually check on your outlandish claims.

I urge my readers to see the benefits of factory farming to humanity as a whole and I point out that the sources provided by my opponent are clearly biased in nature. I urge for him to produce neutral or even slightly less bias sources.

OBVIOUSLY MY OPPONENT HAD NOT FULLY READ THROUGH MY DEBATE, when i made the statement 'however this doesn't mean we have to use traditional methods of farming' i followed with FACTORY FARMS TODAY SHOULD BE BANNED BUT ADAPTED FOR FUTURE USE' I hope the readers will keep this in mind.

ALSO I DID NOT PUT THAT THERE WAS A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE THERE IS A FEW POUND DIFFERENCE. Ok, yes there is a slight price difference however does under £1 less for a free range chicken count as a lot, to see animals being treated with care. If animals differ of appreciation in different cultures it doesn't matter humans need to be fed and these animals were being infected and cause disease shown in one of my hyperlinks again you mustn't have fully read the debate, how can you debate against something you haven't read! I HAVE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING SO RUDE, now i did put that when they are taken to slaughter houses they are treated badly and dragged around and one of my hyperlinks showed this on a VIDEO, PETA have filmed proof shown in my links.

You seem to be using wikipedia a lot, did you know wikipedia is written by people and altered by others? in a lot of cases their documents are false, where as i got my information from fully safe and professional writ documents.

As you seem to refuse reading through my debate (very immature) i will keep it short AND SIMPLE

There is under £1 difference for a free range chicken (same size) which you can be sure has been treated fairly.

an average of £7 for animals which have been mistreated and abused and that have with meat that contains or may contain arsenic and other poisonous substances, where as you can buy a chicken same size for an average of 89p more, which is treated fairly, no poisonous substances and haven't been sexually abused.

workers which are incapable of working with the animals properly

laying in their own faeces and urine and this meat is disposed of and in some cases leaving some of the infested skin not realising

No room to move

23/24 hours a day being forced to eat as lights are kept on

a quote from another : animals were here before us they should be cherised not abused some humans are a disgrace

If you were to have 2 portions of chicken a day then you would spend around 2,555 for thousands of chickens which were bred disgracefully, where as you could get thousands of free range chickens for around £324 extra which in the long run, is safer and although it may seem a lot of money it would be worth it.

I hope that you take some time to fully research factory farming as their are many more links however i cannot write them all down, thank you very much for reading my debate, and considering my arguments.

I have to say that I am insulted by my opponents presumptuous and radical claims that state that I did not read his arguments, a claim that doesn't even make sense considering I have addressed all of his points.

My opponent tries to cover his mistake of trying to switch the debate onto a track which implies that it should be adapted for future use while the resolution and his arguments clearly point to a view in which factory farming should be banned.

Video evidence: from PETA via Youtube. Once again PETA is the worst place to obtain this sort of information from if you want neutral facts. This would be like asking the Democratic National Committee for information about the Republican party. It's ludicrous to think of it.

My opponent once again clings to the fact that this price change is "few" or "slight" while I have clearly shown that this is not the case for much of the world and over time this "slight" price difference takes its toll on the consumer economy.

As to your apparent attack on my use of Wikipedia... On this site Wikipedia is generally accepted as a reliable source and unless stated otherwise is to be considered valid based on precedent. Also editing Wikipedia is a thing of the past, you can no longer edit with free reign as you used and everything put onto their site has to be sourced with a footnote at the bottom. Nice try with the attack however.

Next my opponent goes on to list all of their previous arguments as if you and I have not already read through them extensively. So, as not to be rude or unfair, I will also just repost my previous arguments that refute his.

Low monetary cost — Intensive agriculture tends to produce food that can be sold at lower cost to consumers. This is achieved by reducing land costs, management costs, and feed costs through government subsidized agricultural methods.Standardization* — Factory farming methods permit increased consistency and control over product outputEfficiency — Animals in confinement can be supervised more closely than free-ranging animals, and diseased animals can be treated faster. Furthermore, efficient production of meat, milk, or eggs results in a need for fewer animals to be raised.Economic contribution — The high input costs of agricultural operations result in a large influx and distribution of capital to a rural area from distant buyers rather than simply recirculating existing capital.Food safety — Reducing number and diversity of agricultural production facilities may or may not make oversight and regulation of food quality easierAnimal health* — Larger farms may or may not employ greater resources to maintain a high level of animal health. Larger farms can potentially employ expert employees

* Note these items are things that he kept refering back to in his assertions but have already been addressed.

Humans>Animals - This is a generally accepted term and even if its not the benefits to all of humanity outweigh damaging conditions to a small population of the animals on Earth.

Farm animals affected + all humans affected = worth it.

The banning of factory farming would be catastrophic for the human population and while some of its practices are distasteful other practices taken from factory farming have benefited the agriculture buisness, the efficiency of farming while keeping the animals in mind. In the end is worth it to both the economy and world food security.

I congradulate my opponent on his first debate and thank him for the challenge.

i'd rather actually than see these animals be harmed, no i'm not a vegan i eat meat, but i spend a bit extra to get SAFE food. i did quote factory farms need to be adjusted for future usage, this proves my point once again that you did not read my arguments,
Thank you,
Candice x

Reasons for voting decision: Pro needed to establish that problems with factory farming are inherent and universal. He only provided examples. His method parallels racists who argue "All people who are X are bad, because I have a list of examples of bad people who are X." Pro's sources were weak and did not provide the stats needed. Pro loses Conduct for claiming Con didn't read his arguments.

Reasons for voting decision: peta was used she had her sources too, giving her sources as she still had more, and credible ones. I agree that banning it may hurt us but she proved a cost and benefit ratio. Also she said it needs to be changed. Although not the resolution this point stood. Also many of cons arguments where sourced, therefore pro was more convincing. . counter vote bomb politics grammar point. has no explanation and both had good grammar. tell why his grammar was better then I take away the point to pro

Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. Con shows how the banning of factory farming would have adverse effects on the human population. He also gets conduct for Pro's rude demenor... And I want to give him sources since Pro used PETA continuously but I dont want to VB.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.